AC&W

Init qual check for the CO, and S1 for the Boom.

"At a distance of approximately 2,300 kilometers, the Air Force struck an Iranian refueling aircraft a short time ago at Mashhad airport in eastern Iran. The Air Force is working to achieve air superiority throughout Iran. This is the farthest strike since the operation began."

*looked like Appears the queen is dead.

If they cripple the Phantom fleet, maybe they can spare the Queen of the Tankers. https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/19/kish-air-show-a-unique-opportunity-to-see-the-worlds-last-flying-f-14-tomcat-jets-in-action-and-much-more/

Probably is too high, just lazy maths. Using more liberal assumptions of 5k per hour fuel burn, and 5k landing fuel, only adds 10k total offload capability for a one hour sortie. 6.9k for both assumptions, gets you 6.2k additional offload...so 1x Viper.

I suspect the "modification in the previous baseline" is hypothetical. I don't believe Embraer has actually modified the C-390 beyond its advertised specifications. The boom attached to the cargo door is hypothetical, and the Embraer engineer I spoke with used the 79,090 max fuel capacity when I queried. Anything beyond 79,090 would require engineering rework making a product with an "off the shelf solution" too big to fit on the shelf.

Per their website the max internal fuel is 52,690. Up to three auxiliary fuel tanks with individual capacity of 8,800 can be loaded in the cargo compartment, which brings the maximum fuel capacity to 79,090. I had the opportunity to chat with an Embraer C390 engineer at a trade show. I've since lost my notes on what he informed me was the fuel burn per hour and minimum landing fuel. But if you assume 10k per hour and 10k landing fuel, the hypothetical best case is about a 50k to 60k offload, assuming a one to two hour flight. I didn't get an as detailed explanation on how they plan to fit a boom on it, but he did mention the magic included some flexible and collapsible hoses and couplings. The 50k to 60k offload and boom sacrifice any cargo capability. My takeaway was this could be useful as a companion to a small fighter detachment. Remove the internal fuel tanks, leave room for six pallets and 36 maintenance troops. One pallet for bags, one pallet for boom equipment, four pallets for MX equipment. Land somewhere, reconfigure the cargo door to install the boom, have about a 30k offload capability, assuming one hour flight and landing gas (50k internal, 10k flight time, 10k land). Is the juice worth the squeeze?

No, but I used to live there. Canadian hockey fans booing the US national anthem is not unprecedented. Hockey to them is a cultural identity, borderline religion. They are also very proud of their whiskey (and maple leafs, and Timmies), American Bourbon will likely not cause a stir. I admire and respect our northern neighbors; political winds shift from time to time.

Would like to see some stats ranking senior leaders fired by MAJCOM. Anecdotal memory seems like AFMC experiences a high proportion of love games sackings.

I had the opportunity to work with a couple of Boeing line engineers on a project over a period of time. It was eye opening to work with some great motivated dudes who faced the same bureaucratic hurdles, and lackluster upper management we face in the AF.

When I began reading your post I thought you were referring to J6 of the Joint Staff and wondering what I was missing.

I'm not 100% certain, but I suspect accounts associated with a minor are required to issue paper statements. I experienced the same until my kids turned 18.

I know. The videos are what motivated my statement above.

Looks staged, despicable if in fact it was.

The structure is there, the incentive is up for debate. In a peacetime environment who has the most to benefit in advertising USSTRATCOM assets within the DoD? Is the leader of an organization with proximity to middle America included in the the answer? When you can't advertise the other two, the airborne asset is the lead singer, readiness and morale be damned.